Harmonizing For Inaction

Terry Milewski on today’s Power & Politics explaining the intent of the leaked cabinet memo proposing that Canada’s emission reduction scheme be “harmonized” with U.S. legislation. Accordingly, the oil and gas industry would be given favourable treatment as an “energy-intensive trade influenced sector.”

Advertisements

30 Comments

Filed under Environmental Policy, STEPHEN HARPER Govrnment of Canada

30 responses to “Harmonizing For Inaction

  1. Guzzeuntite

    Why is anyone taking anything that is being discussed in Copenhagen the least bit seriously?

    Here’s what’s going to come out of this all-expense-paid boondoggle:

  2. Jim

    It pays to look at the other YT vids that become available after watching the one you embedded.

  3. Ti-Guy

    And I’m sure you can explain to us all what it means, eh Jimbo?

    *snort*

  4. counter coulter

    Jim: Quite the “interesting” video that. It took me a while, but I think the programming language is IDL. Of course we don’t have any context of this source doe, so it’s rather hard to decipher the meaning of anything from it.

    I was torn about what my favorite thing of the video is: that it’s been viewed a whopping 140 times or the poster’s description of the video:

    Christ’s words to the bride about a certain knight’s desertion from the true army, that is, from humility, obedience, patience, faith, etc., to the false one, that is, to the opposing vices, pride, etc., and the description of his condemnation, and about how one can meet with condemnation because of an evil will just as much as because of evil deeds.

    …and on goes for several paragraphs.

  5. I am not impressed by any plans to give special status to the oil & gas sector. That means that the rest of us will have to make up for the excess emissions of that sector. There’s another name for that: subsidization.

    The Conservatives freaked over a carbon tax, claiming it was regional warfare against Alberta. How is this proposal not the inverse?

    And the tar sands slated for further expansion…

    =====
    I’m a computer programmer. It’s how I make my living.

    I’ve bumped into poor code more often than not. Many clients frankly won’t pay what it costs to produce pretty code.

    As for academics, they’ll get the code working, and then will happily move on.

    We are not looking at final code in those emails. And I’m not surprised that programming is not a main skill of some of these people.

    Their work has been verified, and other work using different data has yielded very similar results.

    See page 467 of the last IPCC report for the data plots of various reconstructions of the last 1200 years done by various different researchers:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf <- watch that large pdf!

    Whereas some people are obsessed with replicating exactly how some researchers did things, others are far more interested in getting usable results by collecting data or analyzing others' data and seeing what results they get, and then comparing them to the *results* of established research.

    You can criticize the work of the CRU scientists all you want, but their work has been verified.

    Oh, I forgot. It's all a hoax.

  6. Guzzeuntite

    “You can criticize the work of the CRU scientists all you want, but their work has been verified.” — MF

    Fruit of a tainted tree.

  7. Ti-Guy

    “Tainted tree?”

    Gawd, I hate it when they try to be lyrical.

  8. “Fruit of a tainted tree.”

    Damn! Foiled by false metaphor!

    I keep forgetting that we don’t need facts when we have all kinds of plausible but false alternative realities to invent and depend on.

  9. Guzzeuntite

    “I keep forgetting that we don’t need facts when we have all kinds of plausible but false alternative realities to invent and depend on.”

    God, MF, you are a one-trick pony. The emails and disclosed document are prima facie evidence of a scandal.

  10. Guzzeuntite

    If I said “poisonous tree” Mark Francis and the scary CWTF would have been all over my ass as a exaggerating conspiracy mongering factless denier. As is my wont, I chose to be diplomatic. Lyricism had nothing to do with it.

  11. “Prima facie” means “on first appearance”, not “on first spin.”

    Okay, Guzzeuntite, stop with the assertions, and get on with the proof. Stick to one issue at a time. Why not start with ‘hide the decline?’

  12. Guzzeuntite

    Instead of proof, let’s call it evidence.

    I suggest you start with a personal detailed reading of all of the emails and other documents that came out of CRU. Once you have PERSONALLY done that, Mark Francis, get back to me with your thoughts. Till then, please stop with the endless rehash of the same Science that is now in open dispute, Mr. Assertion of disputed Science.

  13. CWTF

    Okay, Guzzeuntite, stop with the assertions, and get on with the proof.
    He won’t because he can’t…

    http://www.desmogblog.com/climatespin-using-stolen-emails-cripple-policy
    Seems to sum up all of this..
    Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish this landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

    If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.

  14. Guzzeuntite

    Mark Francis asked for Hide the Decline. Who am I not to honor that request? One more time:

  15. CWTF

    What’s reading when you can look at pretty images, right Guzzeuntite?

  16. Guzzeuntite

    “If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.” — Twerpitude

    Let’s start with “if one throws out.” Yes. Let’s.

    Next, “there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.”

    Well GISS is being sued to release its raw data and methodology, which they have unwilling to do despite FOIA requests. My relative at GISS has been very busy in the last 9 months or so. I hope for his sake, the evidence he and his colleagues release isn’t as damning. Nevertheless, I think we will find similar data manipulation. I say this because of the commonality of the source of the data, the commonality of the political and environmental views of the two places, the involvement of the scandal-prone UN*, and the fact that people like Mark Francis and Twerpitude are such fuckin’ ostriches.

    Some mountain: A mountain of “homogenized” temperature records.

    *Did I say “scandal prone”? I mean “everything they touch is corrupted.”

  17. Guzzeuntite

    “What’s reading when you can look at pretty images, right Guzzeuntite?” — Twerpitude

    Does that mean you will continue to surf all day for internet porn instead of poring over the CRU documents?

  18. Guzzeuntite,

    You clearly refuse any serious debate. You make assertions, and when they are contradicted, you just move on making more assertions.

    You do not now anyone at GISS. You are lying.

    That’s my assertion. Prove me wrong.

    Please fully name your contact there.

  19. Oh, and, who are you anyway, Guzzeuntite? A faceless person claiming to have inside knowledge we can’t verify?

  20. Guzzeuntite

    “You do not now anyone at GISS. You are lying.”

    I am not.

    “That’s my assertion. Prove me wrong. Please fully name your contact there.”

    Are you joking? He’s a close relative of mine. You want me to (1) embarrass him, (2) maybe jeopardize his job, and (3) piss him off to prove something to you? Besides, even if I named him, how would that prove that I know him? Would you like to call him up and ask him if he knows Guzzeuntite? Want to know my name too?

    No, thanks. I’ll live with your doubts. It’s not as if it will make any difference in your deeply held faith — I mean — beliefs.

    “Oh, and, who are you anyway, Guzzeuntite? A faceless person claiming to have inside knowledge we can’t verify?”

    I have a face. You may not see it, however. Tough titties. Like many, I value my privacy for my own reasons. With regard to GISS, yes, I do have certain inside knowledge. Believe it or don’t. I will not attempt to prove it to you. But let me ask you this: Why would I lie?

  21. Guzzeuntite asks: “Why would I lie?”

    Because you keep using your unverifiable assertions to bolster arguments. As you refuse to back yourself up, it seems you are lying in order to gain leverage. And I can back my assertion that you are lying: You refuse to provide evidence. Your motive to lie is that it gives you credibility as some sort of authority on GISS and the CRU.

    So, there’s facts supporting my assertion that you are a liar, none supporting yours. You claim to have facts, but without the ability to verify them, your so-called facts are merely assertions. You assert to have facts supporting your assertion that the science is all biased or faked. Hilarious!

  22. Guzzeuntite

    “Because you keep using your unverifiable assertions to bolster arguments.” – big MF

    No I don’t. Prove it or be called a liar.

  23. Ti-Guy

    Guzzentite is a case study in what expensive private school education usually gets you.

    Thank God for Egerton Ryerson.

  24. Guzzeuntite

    Who??????

  25. Ti-Guy

    You know that I generally don’t respond to your Inquisitions, so don’t bother.

  26. Guzzeuntite

    Doesn’t matter. I bet the guy is Canadian.

  27. =====
    I said: “Because you keep using your unverifiable assertions to bolster arguments.” – big MF

    You said: “No I don’t. Prove it or be called a liar.”
    =====

    In three words you just proved me right. Without citing any evidence, you claim I am wrong. That’s an unverified assertion.

    Next, I already have already proved you use unverifiable assertions to bolster yourself: There is no evidence supporting your claim that you have contacts at GISS. There is no evidence that you have studied their politics to a point of claiming that they are *all* homegeneous politically and that it affects their work. You also extended that same baseless assertion all the way to the CRU as well.

    All we have are claims made by a anonymous person(s). When asked to provide your contact name at GISS. You refused.

    As you refuse to reveal any facts backing those claims up, you make unverifiable assertions.

  28. Guzzeuntite

    Thank you for that lengthy explaination, but you did forget to explain to RT’s valued readers why I refuse to give you evidence as to the identity of my caontact at GISS.

    What the hell. Whatever makes you look better is OK by me big MF.

  29. “Thank you for that lengthy explaination, but you did forget to explain to RT’s valued readers why I refuse to give you evidence as to the identity of my caontact at GISS.”

    That’s just more assertion.

    Facts continue to be completely absent on your part.

    I could log on here as an anonymous user, and make the same baseless assertions as you, except claim that everyone working at GISS are, in fact, rugged contrarian libertarians trying desperately to refute their own work anddata, but failing every time.

    There’s just as much evidence to support that as your claim that they’re all commies or whatever.

  30. Cool post thanks, definitely consider a follow up post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s